Thread: How much Moderator Action Is Too Much

It is my personal opinion that moderator action should vary depending on the forum. Smack talk really shouldn't need much moderating past over the top insults and severe cursing. A forum like the politics and religion forum should need more moderation then most. Those forums go past your favorite football team, or who is the best QB in the league (obviously Palmer). Those forums show a part of you, and your personal life. I mean it is pretty obvious that there will always be something that is blatantly offensive and wrong that could be posted in any forum.

I favor extreme moderation. So, no amount of Moderator Action is too much. I like being told what is and is not acceptable and shown what is and is not acceptable. Exactly like Guided Practice.

Originally Posted by Cleveland Rocks

I favor extreme moderation. So, no amount of Moderator Action is too much. I like being told what is and is not acceptable and shown what is and is not acceptable. Exactly like Guided Practice.

I sense sarcasm That is no longer allowed

Originally Posted by sneakers

I sense sarcasm That is no longer allowed

No, actually, I'm not being sarcastic.

I like Guided Practice and fully support Guided Practice. Like for instance, not naming names or anything. If you open a thread and are accused of being off topic. Yet, your posts are on topic. Wouldn't you like a disclaimer by the moderators or something? Something like:

"DISCLAIMER: The purpose of this thread and sole purpose of this thread is to talk trash about ______. All posts deviating from talking trash about ______, will be summarily deleted."

Something like that would really be helpful. Like in the Smack Forum thread - or anywhere else for that matter. Or even the opposite, like a Game Day thread where all posts are supposed to be extremely upbeat and positive and another were everything is supposed to be extremely hypocritical and full of anger. It should have a disclaimer as well - everything would be awesome.

Originally Posted by Cleveland Rocks

No, actually, I'm not being sarcastic.

I like Guided Practice and fully support Guided Practice. Like for instance, not naming names or anything. If you open a thread and are accused of being off topic. Yet, your posts are on topic. Wouldn't you like a disclaimer by the moderators or something? Something like:

"DISCLAIMER: The purpose of this thread and sole purpose of this thread is to talk trash about ______. All posts deviating from talking trash about ______, will be summarily deleted."

Something like that would really be helpful. Like in the Smack Forum thread - or anywhere else for that matter. Or even the opposite, like a Game Day thread where all posts are supposed to be extremely upbeat and positive and another were everything is supposed to be extremely hypocritical and full of anger. It should have a disclaimer as well - everything would be awesome.

CR,

You and I both know what you're referencing.

Yep, I deleted a post of yours. I asked publicly for you and others to stay on topic and you elected to rant at me. I did it publicly because I didn't want to close the thread.

If you have a problem with any action me or another mod takes, you can ask the board to look at it.

However, it's my job as a mod to keep threads running smoothly. In my OPINION, your posts weren't doing that.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

BMM

Originally Posted by sneakers

I sense sarcasm That is no longer allowed

If you would like to add to the discussion, please do so in the spirit of the thread, which deals with mods and the actions they take.

A generalized statement like this one only serves to stir things up.

Originally Posted by broncos_mtnman

CR,

You and I both know what you're referencing.

Yep, I deleted a post of yours. I asked publicly for you and others to stay on topic and you elected to rant at me. I did it publicly because I didn't want to close the thread.

If you have a problem with any action me or another mod takes, you can ask the board to look at it.

However, it's my job as a mod to keep threads running smoothly. In my OPINION, your posts weren't doing that.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

BMM

No, you are wrong.

I post in the Other Teams forums news about the Browns. Just a simple news story related to the Browns. What happens to it? People come to talk smack, in the Other Teams forum. Smack is for the Smack forum, not the Other Teams forum.

I go and respond, on topic to a post in P&R about any given subject on the subject. Yet, people feel I am off topic by posting about the event surrounding the topic and the event pertaining to the topic. A disclaimer specifically stating what artistic or non-artistic plans for the post are out in the open. Not open to interpretation. Such as a post in the Other Teams Forum stating:

"DISCLAIMER: This thread is devoted to talking about the Browns in ____ game. No smack."

Then, if a person wants to talk smack, they can make a thread in the smack forum devoted to the opposite of that post and so on. WIth this system there are clearly defined roles for that given thread. That way all participants in that thread, even the innocent bystander reading it, knows full well what is expected to be on or off topic in that one given thread.

Originally Posted by Cleveland Rocks

No, you are wrong.

I post in the Other Teams forums news about the Browns. Just a simple news story related to the Browns. What happens to it? People come to talk smack, in the Other Teams forum. Smack is for the Smack forum, not the Other Teams forum.

I go and respond, on topic to a post in P&R about any given subject on the subject. Yet, people feel I am off topic by posting about the event surrounding the topic and the event pertaining to the topic. A disclaimer specifically stating what artistic or non-artistic plans for the post are out in the open. Not open to interpretation. Such as a post in the Other Teams Forum stating:

"DISCLAIMER: This thread is devoted to talking about the Browns in ____ game. No smack."

Then, if a person wants to talk smack, they can make a thread in the smack forum devoted to the opposite of that post and so on. WIth this system there are clearly defined roles for that given thread. That way all participants in that thread, even the innocent bystander reading it, knows full well what is expected to be on or off topic in that one given thread.

If you feel someone is posting in the wrong forum, that's what the report button is for. Please use it and one of the mods will address it.

But when you join in the discussion, it forces us to deal with you as well as the others. USE THE REPORT FEATURE...

I thought that one of the reasons BroncosForums was created was that BM was getting too oppressive, and it felt as if we were getting babysat....So having a Moderator always looking over your shoulder, and always threatening "corrective" action (deleting your post, etc) kind of feels like a slap in the face.

Originally Posted by sneakers

I thought that one of the reasons BroncosForums was created was that BM was getting too oppressive, and it felt as if we were getting babysat....So having a Moderator always looking over your shoulder, and always threatening "corrective" action (deleting your post, etc) kind of feels like a slap in the face.

I agree with you to a point. We don't like, nor want to be, "Big Brother" watching every little thing.

Our preference is to let the boards go on their own, but there will be times when we will have to step in. Even though we are not the "other" board, it still isn't permissible to attack another member, or violate our rules.

It's not a "slap in the face," it's our job to do what we can to make this a family community.

That's not so hard, is it?

I haven't posted in this thread yet, but let me throw in my on how much is too much moderating for me.

I personally feel that if you are a moderator, you moderate and don't really get too involved in the actual discussions. I saw it on BM when a Mod would get involved in a heated debate and be just as guilty as the members and then start deleting posts or closing threads. That to me is not moderating.

I haven't really seen that here yet, but I have seen mods getting involved in debates and get heavily involved in them at that and too me that is not what they should be doing.

Mods should float around and keep things running smooth. Not showing up in a debate and flash their mod badge only to be part of the problem.

Like I said, I have not really seen that happening here YET. I want mods to be part of the discussions and debates, and if they are to act like a regular member and not someone who has it their way or the highway.

On a side note:I would also like to see someone that is not so much on the conservative side of the political fence or religion be a mod also. I myself am a Christian and Conservative and would like it if we had someone to kind of even out the "mod" team from the other side. I feel that might help with any future hostilities that might come about towards our current mods and favoritism. Just something to think about. Kind of a Fair and Balanced board.

Originally Posted by Watchthemiddle

On a side note:I would also like to see someone that is not so much on the conservative side of the political fence or religion be a mod also. I myself am a Christian and Conservative and would like it if we had someone to kind of even out the "mod" team from the other side. I feel that might help with any future hostilities that might come about towards our current mods and favoritism. Just something to think about. Kind of a Fair and Balanced board.

But then it would get out of hand. To make a Fair and Balanced board you would have far too many moderators because of that whole ideal. The only way a moderator should be chosen is if they are indifferent to a certain topic. If they have strong feelings one way or the other it would be easy for them to delete posts that they simply just disagree with.

Originally Posted by Cleveland Rocks

But then it would get out of hand. To make a Fair and Balanced board you would have far too many moderators because of that whole ideal. The only way a moderator should be chosen is if they are indifferent to a certain topic. If they have strong feelings one way or the other it would be easy for them to delete posts that they simply just disagree with.

No it wouldn't. I feel that a board this size 4-5 mods is PLENTY. If the political beliefs and religious beliefs are split down the middle, it would make for more balance in those topics.

Those topics are where the heat really is. And the mods get involved in that heat just as bad as the regular poster. That is when it would be nice if a mod on the other end of the spectrum moderated and calmed the mod down and the member. Fair and balanced.

Originally Posted by Watchthemiddle

No it wouldn't. I feel that a board this size 4-5 mods is PLENTY. If the political beliefs and religious beliefs are split down the middle, it would make for more balance in those topics.

Those topics are where the heat really is. And the mods get involved in that heat just as bad as the regular poster. That is when it would be nice if a mod on the other end of the spectrum moderated and calmed the mod down and the member. Fair and balanced.

That is a good idea. For these mods donate their time and want to be a part of the board just like any of us do, and should be able to. Having another mod, mod the mod, would allow for that. So everyone's happy.

Originally Posted by Cleveland Rocks

But then it would get out of hand. To make a Fair and Balanced board you would have far too many moderators because of that whole ideal. The only way a moderator should be chosen is if they are indifferent to a certain topic. If they have strong feelings one way or the other it would be easy for them to delete posts that they simply just disagree with.

Ain't gonna happen, or shouldn't. I haven't seen where a Mod has deleted a
post simply because he/she disagrees with it, nor do I anticipate it. But if you
ever do see it happening, lodge a complaint, and it WILL be addressed. Mods
are not above correction.

-----